..to think that Apple’s hold on its customers, or on its patents, is just about style or fashion (as Haydn Shaughnessy asserted after the Apple vs. Samsung decision) is to miss the larger impact the company has had on our culture.... Apple’s real genius has been to deliver precision engineering at affordable prices

Interestingly, last week a Japanese court refused to ban Apple products at Samsung's request. It's perhaps fitting to see both sides pushed back by the courts.

However, the word from San Jose is that neither Apple nor Samsung are ready to back down, even though many of the Samsung products at issue are no longer on the market, and despite the fact that Apple's management is clearly distracted.

It seems at the outset that Steve Jobs and Cook requested Samsung to alter its initial Galaxy designs. When Samsung refused, Jobs made the decision to litigate, with Cook opposed. But it seems like to now rumble on into 2014.

Last Friday's court decision reduces the jury fine by over $450 million but there is also a possibility of the judge adding in other compensation for Apple.

Judge Koh concluded:

The court has identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award and cannot reasonably calculate the amount of excess while effectuating the intent of the jury

"The jury based its award for 14 Samsung products on an incorrect legal theory, Koh ruled, saying the companies should consider appealing her ruling before any trial begins.....

The jury appears to have erred by awarding damages on Samsung profit for products that infringed only utility patents, which isn’t legally permitted, Koh said. In addition, portions of the damages awarded for patent infringement were excessive because they may have included compensation for infringement before Samsung was on notice that Apple owned the intellectual property."

However, the judge is also totting up possible damages on products that the jury did not consider.

On a personal note, my opinion that the verdict was a mistake, was based on a view that most Apple fans find offensive - I thought the design of the original iPhone has badly flawed, and most of us who owned one had to keep them in covers that hid the beautiful shape.

The reason - uncovered, the sleek phone would slip out of your hand. So it was that Apple changed the shape to something less slippery. How significant was the design in the iPhone's success then?

As a user I prized the big icons on the UI and the rest I kept in a black sleeve. But that is all history at this stage, as the court case should be too.

I guess this conflict will redefine the idea of how long a case can run and run.